XIV. With regard to the peculiar defence which Bocalina makes for Machiavel, it is easy to see, at whom his malignant expressions point; which he might very well have omitted, because without alluding to any one in so elevated a form of life, he had very near at hand in the person of Cæsar Borgia[2], a man furnished with all the requisites for his purpose, and whom he did not run much hazard of announcing. I mean, that in order to excuse Machiavel from being the inventor of the maxims he published, and to point out some person under whom he had studied and learned them, he could have fixed on no one more proper than that prince, because Cæsar Borgia was without doubt, a man of most iniquitous and tyrannic politics, and capable of committing all sorts of wickedness, provided his doing it would contribute to advance his grandeur; for he was fiery, daring, and cruel, and was besides so furiously ambitious, that were it in his power, he was capable of burning the whole world, for the sake afterwards of domineering absolutely over the ashes of it.
XV. Hermanus Coringius, a protestant author, says, that Machiavel was some time in the service of this prince. If this be true, it is easy to guess from whom he learned what he afterwards committed to writing; and I believe the Italians would not disdain to acknowledge, that their Florentine politician had been instructed by a Spanish master.
XVI. But the truth is, that Machiavel had no occasion to seek for an example, either in him, or in any other of the princes of his own time; for as he was a man pretty well read in history, every age had furnished him with examples in plenty. They mistake little less, who suppose Machiavel learned his maxims from the politicians of his day; than those do, who believe the politics, posterior to Machiavel, were taken from his doctrines.
XVII. But notwithstanding all that can be urged in opposition to it, this second opinion is much entertained and received by people of little reading and short reflection, in which group we may suppose to be comprehended the bulk of mankind. Not a few, when they converse upon this subject, add with a mysterious gravity, and as if they were extracting a profound apophthegm from the inmost recesses of their understandings, that although Machiavel was the master who introduced this doctrine, it has since his time been so much improved upon in courts, that if the master could now come back into the world, he would find it necessary to go to school again.
XVIII. I cannot refrain from laughter, when I hear men discourse in this manner, who, from their education, ought to know and reason better. The maxims of tyrannic policy are as antient in the world, as government or dominion. Machiavelianism owes its first existence to the most antient princes of the earth, and only to Machiavel its name. It is rooted in our nature, and it does not require ages, as moments, when fit occasions present themselves, are equal to bring forth its malignant productions. Nor is the passion of domineering more natural to man, than that of amplifying and extending his dominion. An ambitious man, by attaining to be a prince, does not find his ambition satisfied; but is always desirous of extending his power, exteriorly with respect to the subjects of other states, and interiorly with regard to his own. The love of independence can seldom be contained within reasonable bounds. He who is free from all subjection to other men, aspires at being independent of the laws also.
SECT. IV.
XIX. I am so far from thinking that Machiavel has made the world worse in this respect, or from supposing that the princes of these times, have refined upon the iniquitous politics of Machiavel, that I firmly believe, if we limit our enquiries precisely to Europe, we shall find the sovereigns of it in general, much better than those of the remote ages.
XX. Now-a-days, if it is in contemplation to impose some new burthen on the subject, or to wage war with a neighbouring state, divines and lawyers are consulted upon the justice and propriety of the measure; an enquiry is made, how the laws stand with respect to the subject matter in question, and the archives and records are examined and turned over; and although it often happens, that from the ambitious adulation of the people consulted, a right is attributed to their prince, which in reality does not belong to him, their malice does not impeach his good faith. In former times this was not the case. If a prince was disposed to trample on the rights of his subjects, or to subdue his neighbours, he consulted nobody, nor made any other enquiry or examination, than whether he had force and power sufficient to accomplish what he meditated; and the question was always decided, by his ability or inability to execute what he designed. In times not very distant from our own, and even in the most polished kingdoms, where the true religion has humanized people’s minds, when the person invaded by a powerful prince his neighbour, has represented to him, that his pretensions to what he possesses are just and legal; the invader has laughed at the representation, and answered savagely, in the language that was then become proverbial in the mouths of kings and ministers of state, that the rights of princes were not to be determined by old rolls of parchment, but by burnished arms.
SECT. V.
XXI. The further our memories carry us back through the series of past times, we find this evil the greater; and from hence proceeds that ill opinion, which in early ages was generally entertained of kings. The Romans were struck with amazement, to find the Cappadocians, upon their offering to make their country a free republic, instantly request, that they would permit them to remain under kingly government; which amazement, was occasioned by their considering in a rigorous or strict sense, that mode of rule, as a mark or type of slavery. Cato said, this animal which is called a king, is a great devourer of human flesh; Hoc animal rex carnivorum est. And Flavius Vopiscus, tells us of a Roman buffoon, who pleasantly and keenly remarked, that the effigies of all the good kings that had ever been known in the world, might be carved on a ring. Plato, in his Georgiac dialogue, represents kings as appearing before Rhadamanthus in hell, loaded for the most part with injustices, perjuries, and other wickedness. Aristotle, in his third book on politics, recognizes as tyrannical, the exercise of the regal power, by all, or nearly all, the Asiatic princes; and Livy says, that the most sagacious and penetrating Hannibal, never confided in the promises of kings: fidei regum nihil sane confisus; a legate of the Rhodians also, according to the said Livy, observed, that kings were always desirous of making slaves of their subjects. Thus we have the greatest reason to conclude, that it was a common practice with the princes of those times, to pay no regard to any law, whenever an opportunity offered of augmenting their authority.